DOCSLIB.ORG

Myanmar Study on Cooperation for the Establishing of Intellectual Property Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Myanmar Study on Cooperation for the Establishing of Intellectual Property Office Myanmar Ministry of Science and Technology Myanmar Study on Cooperation for the Establishing of Intellectual Property Office Final Report March 2014 Japan International Cooperation Agency Kyoto Comparative Law Center Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners IL JR 14-039 Contents Map of Myanmar Abstract Chapter I: Introduction 1.1 Background ···················································································· 1 1.2 Framework of the Survey ·································································· 1 1.3 Survey Target ·················································································· 4 1.4 Activities and Schedule ······································································ 4 1.5 Survey Method ·············································································· 5 1.6 Survey Itinerary ············································································· 7 Chapter II: Current Status of Intellectual Property Law System 2.1 Current Status of Intellectual Property Law System ····································· 11 2.1.1 Overview of Intellectual Property Law System ····································· 11 2.1.2 Trademark Law ·········································································· 11 2.1.3 Patent Law ················································································ 16 2.1.4 Industrial Design Law ·································································· 17 2.1.5 Copyright Law ··········································································· 18 Chapter III: Concerned Ministries for Intellectual Property 3.1 Survey Target ·················································································· 25 3.2 Ministry of Information ······································································ 25 3.3 Ministry of Industry ·········································································· 26 3.4 Ministry of Communication and Information Technology ······························ 27 3.5 Ministry of Commerce ······································································· 28 3.6 Ministry of Home Affairs ···································································· 29 Chapter IV: Current Situation of Intellectual Property Laws and Intellectual Property Office 4.1 Intellectual Property Development Plan of Myanmar ··································· 33 4.1.1 Patent Law ················································································ 34 4.1.2 Industrial Design Law ·································································· 35 4.1.3 Tradmark Law ··········································································· 35 4.1.4 Copyright Law ··········································································· 36 4.1.5 Process of Enactment of Law ·························································· 37 4.1.6 Position of MOST ······································································· 38 4.2 Current Situation on the Establishment of Intellectual Property Office ··············· 38 4.2.1 Background ··············································································· 38 4.2.2 Role and Functions of Intellectual Property Office ································· 39 4.2.3 Business of Intellectual Property Office ·············································· 41 Chapter V: Current Intellectual Property Situation 5.1 Introduction ···················································································· 45 5.1.1 Trademark ················································································ 45 5.1.2 Copyright ················································································· 48 5.1.3 Patents and industrial designs ·························································· 49 5.2 Current Intellectual Property Situation of Company ····································· 50 5.2.1 Company A ··············································································· 51 5.2.2 Company B ··············································································· 52 5.2.3 Company C ··············································································· 53 5.2.4 Company D ··············································································· 54 5.2.5 Company E ··············································································· 55 5.2.6 Company F ··············································································· 55 5.2.7 Company G ··············································································· 57 5.3 Awareness of Issues on Intellectual Property by Companies ··························· 58 5.4 Current situation of Enforcement among Ministries ····································· 59 5.5 Necessity of Establishing a Proper Scheme for Enforcement ·························· 60 5.6 Enforcement Body in ASEAN ······························································ 61 Chapter VI: General Outcomes and Proposals 6.1 General Outcomes ············································································ 65 6.1.1 Vision ····················································································· 68 6.2 Proposals ······················································································· 75 6.2.1 Propoals on Intellectual Property Laws and Detailed Regulations ··············· 77 6.2.2 Proposals on establishment of the Intellectual Property Office ··················· 82 6.2.3 Function Facilitation of Overall Intellectual Property System ···················· 92 Appendix Appendix 1 Reports of the Dialogues 1. 1st Dialogue ························································································ 111 2. 2nd Dialogue ······················································································· 125 3. 3rd Dialogue ······················································································· 141 Appendix 2 Reports of the Seminars 1. Seminar on 3 February, 2014 (Nay Pyi Taw) [basic Intellectual Property] ··············· 153 2. Seminar on 4 February, 2014 (Nay Pyi Taw) [Enforcement] ······························· 158 3. Workshop on 7 December, 2013 (Yangon) ···················································· 161 4. Workshop on 5 February, 2014 (Mandalay) ·················································· 165 5. Summary of the Seminars and Workshops ···················································· 169 Appendix 3 ASEAN Survey Report Indonesia ······························································································ 179 Malaysia ······························································································ 204 Thailand ······························································································· 235 Vietnam ······························································································· 266 Appendix 4 Roadmap (tentative) ····························································· 317 Appendix 5 Lists of Names ····································································· 323 Map of Myanmar （Source：www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/myanmar.pdf） Abstract This project on the system and management of intellectual property rights (hereinafter referred to as “IPR”, and intellectual property as “IP”) in Myanmar was conducted with the cooperation of Japan Patent Office (hereinafter referred to as “JPO”), Agency for Cultural Affairs, etc. aiming to promote preparation of environment where the establishment plan can be formulated and implemented through deepening understanding of public and private stakeholders and coordinating their opinions. Specifically, while keeping the following four points in mind, three dialogues, interview surveys in Myanmar, and survey of ASEAN nations were conducted. (i) To recognize the current situation of IPR system and its administration and identify the challenges in Myanmar as well as to confirm the progress of IPR system development and identify the challenge. (ii) To make public and private stakeholders of Myanmar to better understand IPR through seminars and dialogues, foster common understanding on IP Office, examine the establishment plan, and make the stakeholders share the concept. (iii) To collect and sort out information on the current state and the situation at the time of establishment of IP administrative organizations in Japan and neighboring countries, and extract applicable cases for Myanmar. (iv) To summarize the proposals for establishment of IP Office, and make presentation of the recommendations in the seminars and dialogues. The contents of project as contained in Chapter I to VI are summarized from below-Chapter I to VI. Chapter I describes the framework of surveys, survey targets, and timeline of survey of this project. Chapter II summarizes the current IP system in Myanmar. Although Myanmar has no IP laws except for Copyright Act, trademark is protected by registration under common law. Therefore, this chapter put together mainly trademark and copyright. In addition, the remedy system based on various laws is also compiled. Chapter III describes the ministries relevant to IP. The activities of respective ministries concerning IP are introduced based on the interview survey. Chapter IV sums up the situations of IP four laws and establishment of IP Office. Ministry of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as “MOST”) plays a central role for enacting IP laws and establishing IP Office. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Economic Review of Industrial Design in Europe — Final Report
    The Economic Review of Industrial Design in Europe — Final Report MARKT/2013/064//D2/ST/OP January 2015 - 1 - The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Europe Economics is registered in England No. 3477100. Registered offices at Chancery House, 53-64 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1QU. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information/material contained in this report, Europe Economics assumes no responsibility for and gives no guarantees, undertakings or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up to date nature of the information/analysis provided in the report and does not accept any liability whatsoever arising from any errors or omissions. © Europe Economics. All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism or review, no part may be used or reproduced without permission. Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • “Dead Copies” Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act: the New Moral Right
    Saint Louis University Law Journal Volume 51 Number 1 Fall 2006 Article 5 2006 “Dead Copies” Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act: The New Moral Right Kenneth L. Port William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth L. Port, “Dead Copies” Under the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Act: The New Moral Right, 51 St. Louis U. L.J. (2006). Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol51/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW “DEAD COPIES” UNDER THE JAPANESE UNFAIR COMPETITION PREVENTION ACT: THE NEW MORAL RIGHT KENNETH L. PORT* INTRODUCTION In 1993, the Japanese legislature, or Diet, amended the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA) to prevent the slavish copying (moho) of another’s product configuration (shohinno keitai) regardless of registration, regardless of notice of any kind, regardless of whether the configuration was distinctive in 1 any way, and regardless of whether any consumer was confused or deceived. * Professor of Law and Director of Intellectual Property Studies, William Mitchell College of Law. J.D., University of Wisconsin. I am deeply indebted to Laurie Sheen (WMCL ‘07) and Toshiya Kaneko (University of Tokyo) for their assistance with this article. This article was researched while I was a Foreign Research Fellow at the Tokyo University Business Law Center under the gracious auspices of Professor Nobuhiro Nakayama.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Japanese Trademark Law
    Overview of Japanese Trademark Law 2nd Edition Shoen Ono 注: これは、日本語で書かれた『商標法概説［第2版］』（有斐閣、1999）の英訳です。 原著者に翻訳及び公開の許可をいただき公開しております。翻訳については財団法人 知的財産研究所（現在、一般財団法人知的財産研究教育財団 知的財産研究所）が翻訳 事業者に依頼して作成した英訳であり、原著者及び弊所は日本語版と英語版の間に生じ 得る差異について責任を負いません。テキストに対する公式な言及、またその引用を行 う場合には、オリジナルの日本語版に当たり確認してください。 Note: This is the English translation from “Overview of Japanese Trademark Law [2nd ed.]” (Yuhikaku, 1999), written in Japanese. The original author has given permission for translation and publication. The translation was created by a translation company at the request of Institute of Intellectual Property (Currently: Foundation for Intellectual Property, Institute of Intellectual Property). The original author or Foundation for Intellectual Property, Institute of Intellectual Property is not responsible for any discrepancies that may exist between the Japanese and English versions. Readers are recommended to confirm the original Japanese version when formally referencing or citing the text. PART 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS CHAPTER 2: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRADEMARK LAW CHAPTER 3: THE CONCEPT OF THE TRADEMARK LAW CHAPTER 4: SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE TRADEMARK LAW PART 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS Significance of Trademark Protection Trademarks play a vital role in day to day choices made by the consuming public. Consider the effect of trademarks on those who purchase goods and receive services, consumers. Consumers rely on trademarks, for example, to more easily facilitate repeat purchases of goods or services based on a previous pleasurable experience or a manufacturer’s reputation for quality. Trademarks enable consumers to make repeated purchases without extensive research. A critical trait of a strong mark is that it uniquely serves to identify source. Marks that are similar not only inadequately designate true origin, but can actually suggest the wrong origin, encouraging confusion and misleading consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion
    THE LAW, CULTURE, AND ECONOMICS OF FASHION C. Scott Hemphill* & Jeannie Suk** INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 102! I. WHAT IS FASHION? ............................................................................................. 109! A. Status ........................................................................................................... 109! B. Zeitgeist ....................................................................................................... 111! C. Copies Versus Trends .................................................................................. 113! D. Why Promote Innovation in Fashion? ........................................................ 115! II. A MODEL OF TREND ADOPTION AND PRODUCTION ........................................... 117! A. Differentiation and Flocking ....................................................................... 118! B. Trend Adoption ............................................................................................ 120! C. Trend Production ........................................................................................ 122! III. HOW UNREGULATED COPYING THREATENS INNOVATION ............................... 124! A. Fast Fashion Copyists ................................................................................. 124! B. The Threat to Innovation ............................................................................. 128! 1. Harmful copying ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Known Trademark Protection
    WIPO SIX MONTH STUDY - CUM - RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP Well -Known Trademark Protection Reference to the Japanese experience Final Report In Fulfillment of the Long Term Fellowship Sponsored By: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Collaboration with the Japan Patent Office April 2 - Septembe r 30, 2010 Submitted By: Hà Th Nguy t Thu National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam (NOIP) 384 -386 Nguyen Trai, Thanh Xuan, Ha Noi, Vietnam Supervised By: Prof. Kenichi MOROOKA National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) 7-22 -1 Roppongi, Minato -ku, Tokyo 1 06 -8677, JAPAN This report is a mandatory requirement of this fellowship; views and findings are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policy considerations of his organization or sponsor of this study. 1 WIPO SIX MONTH STUDY - CUM - RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP Page INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1 1. Overview of research theme 1 2. Some misunderstanding definitions: famous 2 trademark, well -known trademark, widely - known trademark, trademark with high reputation 3. The function of trademarks and protection 6 trademark CHAPTER 1 INTERNATIONAL FRAMWORK OF 10 WELL -KNOWN TRADEMARKS PROTECTION 1.1 . Paris Convention 10 1.2 . TRIPs Agreement 12 1.3 . WIPO Joint Recommendations concerning 14 provisions on Protection of Well -known Marks CHAPTER 2 WELL -KNOWN TRADEMARKS 15 PROTECTION UNDER JAPANESE LAW 2.1. Protection o f well -known trademark under the 15 Trademark Law (JTL) 2.1.1. Prohibition of Registration of a mark identical or 15 similar to well -known/famous trademark of others 2.1.2. Expansion of Protection of well -known 30 trademarks 2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • ASEAN Common Guidelines for the Substantive Examination Of
    COMMON GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS EXAMINATION COMMON GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE COMMON GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS ASEAN: A Community of Opportunities for All @ASEAN ASEAN @ASEAN www.asean.org ASEAN COMMON GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS 1 ASEAN COMMON GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE EXAMINATION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS The ASEAN Secretariat Jakarta 1 3 The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on 8 August 1967. The Member States of the Association are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, PART PART 1 Thailand and Viet Nam. The ASEAN Secretariat is based in Jakarta, Indonesia. For inquiries, contact: The ASEAN Secretariat Community Relations Division (CRD) ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR THE REFUSAL 70A Jalan Sisingamangaraja Jakarta 12110 OF REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS Indonesia Phone : (62 21) 724-3372, 726-2991 Fax : (62 21) 739-8234, 724-3504 E-mail : [email protected] Catalogue-in-Publication Data Common Guidelines for the Substantive Examination of Industrial Designs Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, November 2018 341.758 1. ASEAN – Intellectual Property Rights – Industrial Designs 2. Standard – Examination – Registration ISBN 978-602-5798-27-6 ASEAN: A Community of Opportunities for All The text of this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, provided proper acknowledgement is given and a copy containing the reprinted material is sent to the Public Outreach
    [Show full text]
  • Law on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design („Official Gazette of the RS”, No
    LAW ON LEGAL PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 1 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 This Law regulates the manner of acquisition of the right to the appearance of an industrial or handicrafts product (hereinafter referred to as: the product), and the protection thereof, respectively. The appearance of a product shall be understood to mean the overall visual impression produced by the product on an informed consumer or user. An informed consumer or user, for the purpose of this Law, shall be a natural person who is regularly in contact with the product concerned. The procedure for the acquisition and the protection of an industrial design which is the subject of an international registration for the territory of the Republic of Serbia on the basis of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (hereinafter referred to as: the Hague Agreement) shall be governed by the provisions of this Law with regard to all the issues which are not regulated by the Hague Agreement. II. SUBJECT - MATTER AND CONDITIONS FOR PROTECTION The Concept of Industrial Design Article 2 Industrial design shall mean three-dimensional or two-dimensional appearance of the entire product or a part thereof, defined by its features, in particular the lines, contours, colors, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself or its ornamentation, as well as their combination. A product shall mean any industrial or handicraft item, including, inter alia , parts intended to be assembled into a complex product, packaging, get-up, graphic symbols and typographic typefaces, but excluding computer programs. A complex product shall mean a product which is composed of multiple components which can be replaced, and which permit disassembly and reassembly of the product.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Patent & Trademark Update
    TMI Associates Issue7 (July 2017) Japan Patent & The reason for this misconception could be that some in the below graph, in 70% of patent infringement lawsuits First, as shown in the below graph, the number of patent In sum, the decrease in the total number of patent applications by 2007; however, the Defendant continued using the articles discuss statistics regarding Japanese patent the judges did not make any decisions on the validity of the applications filed from the other IP5 countries does not show seems to have mostly come from the change in patent filing trademark “Eemax”. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for Unfair Trademark Update lawsuits based only on those cases which have reached a patents. Further, in 43% of patent infringement lawsuits, such a decrease. Rather, the number of patent applications filed policy, i.e., shifting the focus from quantity to quality Competition asserting that the Defendant’s use of “Eemax” was judgment. The information on settled cases, as shown in even though the plaintiffs made invalidation arguments, the by U.S. entities has actually been increasing since 2013. of patents, and not as a result of any decrease in the impermissible given that it is a well-known trademark of the the above graph, was not announced before, and such judges still did not make any decisions with respect to validity. importance of obtaining patent protection in Japan. Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff had not registered the mark. In success rate could previously only be examined based on In other words, it is inappropriate to derive any significant Number of patent applications filed by foreign entities response, the Defendant filed a counterclaim asserting that the cases in which judgments were rendered.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Paper 67 INNOVATION and GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL
    Research Paper 67 June 2016 INNOVATION AND GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGULATORY REGIMES: THE TENSION BETWEEN PROTECTION AND ACCESS Nirmalya Syam and Viviana Muñoz Tellez RESEARCH PAPERS 67 INNOVATION AND GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGULATORY REGIMES: THE TENSION BETWEEN PROTECTION AND ACCESS Nirmalya Syam and Viviana Muñoz Tellez SOUTH CENTRE JUNE 2016 Nirmalya Syam is Programme Officer and Viviana Muñoz Tellez is Coordinator of the Development, Innovation and Intellectual Property Programme at the South Centre. THE SOUTH CENTRE In August 1995 the South Centre was established as a permanent inter- governmental organization of developing countries. In pursuing its objectives of promoting South solidarity, South-South cooperation, and coordinated participation by developing countries in international forums, the South Centre has full intellectual independence. It prepares, publishes and distributes information, strategic analyses and recommendations on international economic, social and political matters of concern to the South. The South Centre enjoys support and cooperation from the governments of the countries of the South and is in regular working contact with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 and China. The Centre’s studies and position papers are prepared by drawing on the technical and intellectual capacities existing within South governments and institutions and among individuals of the South. Through working group sessions and wide consultations, which involve experts from different parts of the South, and sometimes from the North, common problems of the South are studied and experience and knowledge are shared. NOTE Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce the contents of this Research Paper for their own use, but are requested to grant due acknowledgement to the South Centre and to send a copy of the publication in which such quote or reproduction appears to the South Centre.
    [Show full text]
  • An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts
    SPRINGER BRIEFS IN LAW Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 SpringerBriefs in Law SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Typical topics might include: • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques • A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles, and a contextual literature review • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic • A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make independent contributions SpringerBriefs in Law showcase emerging theory, empirical research, and practical application in Law from a global author community. SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10164 Dana Beldiman • Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser Academic Director and Founder, Center Researcher, Center for Transnational for Transnational Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Bucerius Law School Bucerius Law School Hamburg Hamburg Germany Germany and UC Hastings College of the Law San Francisco USA ISSN 2192-855X ISSN 2192-8568 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Law ISBN 978-3-319-54059-7 ISBN 978-3-319-54060-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54060-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017934314 © The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconceptualizing Property in Designs
    AFORI_GALLEY_P1095.DOC 1/29/2008 4:18:35 PM RECONCEPTUALIZING PROPERTY IN DESIGNS ORIT FISCHMAN AFORI* 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................1106 2. WHAT IS A DESIGN, AND WHAT FUNCTIONS DOES IT SERVE? ....1110 3. DESIGN PROTECTION IN CURRENT LAW...................................1116 A. The Location of Design in the Intellectual Property Realm1116 B. Current Design Protection in the United States.............1118 (1) Copyright Protection....................................1118 (2) Patent Protection..........................................1122 (3) Trademark Protection..................................1124 (4) Sui Generis Protection: Vessel Hulls and Semi- Conductor Chips ................................................1126 C. The International “No Standard” ..................................1128 4. THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION OF PATENT OR COPYRIGHT PARADIGM.........................................................................1132 A. The Deficiencies of the Patent Paradigm and Compatibility with the Copyright Paradigm........................................1132 (1) Designing is a Creative not an Inventive Activity - Equal Treatment for Creations...........1132 (2) Designing is a Creative Not an Inventive Activity – The Constitutional Argument............1134 (3) Patent’s Basic Features are Not Appropriate for Designs ..........................................................1135 (a) Novelty Standard is not Appropriate for Artistic Features ............................................1135 (b)
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Design Protection and Competition in Automobile Replacement Partsâ•Flback to Monopoly Profits?
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 19 Article 12 Issue 1 Number 1 – 2 — Fall 1989/Winter 1990 1989 Industrial Design Protection and Competition in Automobile Replacement Parts—Back to Monopoly Profits? James F. Fitzpatrick Georgetown University Law Center Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Fitzpatrick, James F. (1989) "Industrial Design Protection and Competition in Automobile Replacement Parts—Back to Monopoly Profits?," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 19: Iss. 1, Article 12. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol19/iss1/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDUSTRIAL DESIGN PROTECTION AND COMPETITION IN AUTOMOBILE REPLACEMENT PARTS-BACK TO MONOPOLY PROFITS? James E Fitzpatrickt I. INTRODUCTION The central confrontation in the current debate over the enactment of industrial design legislation I is between the auto manufacturers and the automobile insurance industry allied with the consumer movement. That intense disagreement is based, as often is the case in important legislative proposals, on an underlying, high-stakes economic battle. Quite simply, the auto manufacturers want to secure intellectual property protection for the manufacture and sale of automobile replacement parts and thereby raise parts prices back to the stratospheric levels which existed when auto compa­ nies enjoyed a de facto monopoly over parts manufacture and sale.
    [Show full text]